M
Martin_Davis
Guest
I realize I may be stepping into a very “live” minefield, but please accept this as a well-intended comment on the subject of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
The heart of the issue, as I see it, is that currently the law supports legal abortions. In the majority of Christian eyes this is seen as legally supporting an immoral act. Abortion, in my opinion, is a symptom of a much bigger issue that, like slavery, requires a change in society’s values and not just a change in the law.
Research has shown that the majority of requested pregnancy terminations come from women who live below the poverty line. Women who feel helpless to support a child in their poverty.
So, my thinking is that if we were able to truly stand for Pro-Life in its fullest expression we would urge the reduction of government spending on weapons of war and funnel that reduction into an increase in social programs that help the poor out of poverty.
The early Christians were viewed as social outcasts because they would oppose the law by rescuing babies from being drowned or abandoned. Through their example over time the minds of the majority were changed and the laws changed as a result.
Also, on the subject of slavery, if you read the letters of Paul and Peter you find that they taught that Slave owners to change their attitude toward their slaves, and likewise for slaves to honor and obey their masters. This change of heart led to a change in how slaves were treated. The Apostles did not protest the law - they encouraged a change of behavior.
One last thought - God gives us Free Will and does not force us to be moral - he reveals through his word the potential penalty for disobedience - but he still allows us to choose whether we obey or not. Isn’t this the way, unfortunately, that we have to view the Pro-Choice approach? We need to be persuasive in our arguments for life - but we need to allow the choice. I realize this is a tough approach, but it has been a matter of history to see that imposing morality by legal means is not as effective as changing hearts that support that morality and then having legislation that supports that view.
Rather than trying to change the law which currently meets considerable resistance - can we focus on removing the causes of poverty and its resulting hopelessness? We could support legislation that makes it easier and cheaper to adopt children - and support tax relief on low income families rather than legislation that supports tax relief for billionaires?
Just some honest thoughts - please accept them in the spirit they’re given.
The heart of the issue, as I see it, is that currently the law supports legal abortions. In the majority of Christian eyes this is seen as legally supporting an immoral act. Abortion, in my opinion, is a symptom of a much bigger issue that, like slavery, requires a change in society’s values and not just a change in the law.
Research has shown that the majority of requested pregnancy terminations come from women who live below the poverty line. Women who feel helpless to support a child in their poverty.
So, my thinking is that if we were able to truly stand for Pro-Life in its fullest expression we would urge the reduction of government spending on weapons of war and funnel that reduction into an increase in social programs that help the poor out of poverty.
The early Christians were viewed as social outcasts because they would oppose the law by rescuing babies from being drowned or abandoned. Through their example over time the minds of the majority were changed and the laws changed as a result.
Also, on the subject of slavery, if you read the letters of Paul and Peter you find that they taught that Slave owners to change their attitude toward their slaves, and likewise for slaves to honor and obey their masters. This change of heart led to a change in how slaves were treated. The Apostles did not protest the law - they encouraged a change of behavior.
One last thought - God gives us Free Will and does not force us to be moral - he reveals through his word the potential penalty for disobedience - but he still allows us to choose whether we obey or not. Isn’t this the way, unfortunately, that we have to view the Pro-Choice approach? We need to be persuasive in our arguments for life - but we need to allow the choice. I realize this is a tough approach, but it has been a matter of history to see that imposing morality by legal means is not as effective as changing hearts that support that morality and then having legislation that supports that view.
Rather than trying to change the law which currently meets considerable resistance - can we focus on removing the causes of poverty and its resulting hopelessness? We could support legislation that makes it easier and cheaper to adopt children - and support tax relief on low income families rather than legislation that supports tax relief for billionaires?
Just some honest thoughts - please accept them in the spirit they’re given.